Journalistic Integrity
The Republican edition of the YouTube debate was tonight, and right away, it is getting somewhat mixed reviews. This is to be expected. During all the YouTube debates, you see people who immediately trash the format, calling it a fiasco. You know what, though? It’s the best medium for a debate that we’ve ever been able to have in the history of the country. Because it eliminates the barrier between the public and the candidate in a way that isn’t possible anywhere else. Robert Novak thinks that’s a bad thing.
You know when we did away with the monarchy and went through democracy, there was a lot of fear that this sort of thing would happen. It took 200 years but we got there.
He is very, very wrong. Whether the public is informed or not, the people submitting questions are the only ones that actually matter. 200 years ago, these are questions that might have been asked at a stump speech, but today those things are so calculated, scheduled and vetted that the only questions getting asked are ones they want to hear. The YouTube questioners are likely people that didn’t go to an official meet and greet precisely because they knew nobody would answer what they wanted to know. The questions being asked are being asked because they’re not being addressed by the media OR the candidates. And they’re issues people actually care about. I would think that more people (especially bloggers!) would appreciate something like this. It strikes me as profoundly odd that people are so unimpressed given that so many are convinced that there is a biased perspective from journalists running the damn things. Why would anyone be opposed to bypassing them altogether?
We’ve never had an opportunity for real people from anywhere in the country to actually ask direct questions. Are they biased and pointed? Of course! But you know what? You know that they’re biased from the start, and that’s what makes them important. Because the questioners don’t have to pretend to be objective, we see real answers from the candidates. The people on YouTube have something that professional journalists don’t have: anonymity. Maybe not necessarily in identity, but they don’t have to face endless scrutiny over their tactics that can get them in trouble. So they’re free to ask everything that people trying to work in the media can’t or won’t.
Were these debates as good as they could have been? No way. Because the final questions are still chosen by the news media, and as much as I’m sure they admire the concept, it makes them very uncomfortable to see this happen. While they whine about questions being marked by stupidity and juvenile humor, the prospect that those questions might get more serious scares the piss out of them. Why do we need Chris Matthews to ask our questions for us? Why do we need to hear what the people want to know filtered through Bob Novak (or Chris Matthews)? Well… we don’t. As soon as we all figure that out, maybe we can actually start to hear from journalists that do what they’re supposed to do. People like Michael Yon doing outstanding work in Iraq or Seymour Hersh (for better and for worse) investigating into anything he can sniff out. We need more people like those and less people like Chris Matthews who only serve as messengers. We need more YouTube debates where anyone can participate (and ideally in later debates, where anyone can decide what gets asked (once nonsense is filtered out)). What we DON’T need are another half dozen debates of questions written two hours before the debate asking the same crap and getting a paraphrased version of the candidate’s website. We need more truth, less spin. It’s starting to happen, and it’s a very, very happy moment in the nation’s political history.
Good points, especially in regards to the media having biases anyway. But don’t these debates strike you as gimmicky and desperate? I guess my thinking here could be termed “old-fashioned” but the number of debates and the formats and the candidates appearances on Oprah and Larry King and Ellen and the time at which candidates now have to be out there is just so. . . canned and gimmicky.
E the Wise
November 29, 2007 at 9:20 am
It IS. Trust me, one of the main things I hated about this election cycle was this stupid game where there was supposedly a lengthy period of time when the candidates were still “testing the waters”. PLEASE. We all knew Hillary was running eight years ago. Not admitting as much until earlier this year was just insulting.
But that’s why this sort of debate is so important. If we make this something less than the novelty that the traditional media decided to toss out (and make it so that there is a democratic but moderated system for selecting questions (i.e. we vote but the questions about Hitler get tossed out on their ass)), then it cuts down on a lot of that nonsense. We can’t get back to a time when candidates DIDN’T go through extensive preparation, so the best we can hope to do is to put the questions up for grabs and let both sides of the wingnuttery speak as long as they need to. I also think it would be interesting to lose the moderator, too, though, so maybe I’m a bit less old-fashioned than I should be. I’m just not sure Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln could have worked within today’s system of short time limits and cordiality to get their points across. I want a candidate who can fight it out when things get hairy. I think John Edwards would excel in a system like that, and I suspect your boy Fred (probably Huckabee also) would too. You don’t have time for posturing when you have to come up with responses to serious questions on the fly.
This gimmick they stumbled upon could actually end up marginalizing their role in the electoral process. Wouldn’t you just love that to death?
Wes
November 29, 2007 at 9:43 am
The concept of having “debates” with more than two or three candidates is silly. “The medium (media) is the message.” Like it or not, these modern debates are creatures of the media. I do not listen to them.
You are right saying Edwards would excel in the way you described Wes. I however fail to see how being glib is necessarily a good quality for a president.
Excellent job on the post Wes! Very good points and well thought out.
pgwarner
November 29, 2007 at 10:25 am
Wes, a bunch of your “real” people turned out to be Democrat plants, including one who is actually PART of the Hilary Campaign. It is not clear if CNN collaborated or was duped. How do you feel about that?
hairybeast
November 29, 2007 at 2:47 pm
First of all I’ve got to say I just recently found this forum and kudos to the people who run and participate in these blogs. Most of the others I have seen tend to eventually deteriorate into juvenile name calling. I’m a big fan of intelligent politcal debate and try to respect everyone’s opinion no matter whether I agree with it or not.
But I digress. Wes excellent points. While I do agree that the You Tube debates have been gimicky and I highly doubt that CNN’s motives were pure when they developed this concept I like the idea nonetheless. OK agreed that the media is ultimately responsible for what questions actually get aired but I suppose this is as close as we will get to real Americans asking questions directly to the candidates. Hey it’s not perfect but it’s a lot better than the canned questions that have been asked of the candidates by a mediator in the past. Of course the people asking the question are partisan. People have opinions and frankly if I had my way I would have every question asked of the Republicans asked by a Democratic voter and vice versa. “I believe X and you believe Y why do you feel that you are correct on this issue.”
ME IN 08
November 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm
PG, glib isn’t a good quality, but being able to think on your feet and adapt to make decisions is. If one candidate doesn’t answer the question properly, then let someone (one of the candidates, even) call them on it and make them say what they mean. I agree that having so many candidates is a big part of the problem, though. Is there really a need for Joseph Biden or Mike Gravel to debate right now? Can we do like a Survivor thing and vote off one candidate from each debate? Or even a tournament! Give the frontrunner a bye and let ‘er rip!
HB, it’s completely inconclusive as to whether he is actually a plant of Hillary or just a motivated individual. If you look at the Democratic debate questions, there are some Republicans in disguise as well. And that’s as it should be. Did you really think that those people were actually Republicans? They wore their opinions on their sleeve. Like I said before, a moderated democratic effort to select questions based on simple votes. Or some sort of caucus of bloggers. My point isn’t that it’s perfect right now, just that it’s the perfect format for this point in time.
And your biggest beef, that the media is biased against Republicans, would be circumvented in this process.
Glad to see you, ME IN 08! I don’t know that I’d have every question from Republicans (I’m guessing it’d result in everyone having the same answer), but I’d certainly like to see a process that could include enough of both sides to be successful.
Wes
November 29, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Wes,
Of the thousands of questions submitted by other “Motivated Individuals”, CNN chose one from Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, paid for his ticket and flew him out to be in the audience AND awarded him one of the two prize live question slots. This in spite (or perhaps because) of the fact he was named co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s National Military Veterans group.
CNN seemed just as “motivated” to get him in there.
However the Beast does agree the system stinks. Maybe the Dems will show some spine and debate on FOX News someday.
hairybeast
November 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm
What I mean is that CNN shouldn’t select the questions PERIOD. I think that we can and should eliminate that editorial barrier. It’s entirely possible to have a moderated system that can produce questions that people want answered while eliminating the ones that shouldn’t be asked. And to do so without the involvement of the media that is going to be broadcasting it. FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, whatever. There’s no bias because they’re not the ones asking the questions. Ideally, that’s what needs to happen.
As far as why they brought him in, he IS a retired Brigadier General. They’d be just as likely to bring him in if they didn’t know his affiliation than if they did. Plus, there’s really nothing that directly links him to Hillary’s campaign, just to various committees that support her campaign. I wouldn’t call him a plant (they wouldn’t make that mistake so soon), but I also think it was his responsibility to disclaim this stuff and he didn’t do it. CNN REALLY dropped the ball. They should have screened him better, particularly after their last fiasco.
Wes
November 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm
A Hilary Appointee – ok. But you know it WAS a Republican Debate; it would have been nice to have had a few Republicans ask some questions too. How many GOP Campaign appointees did CNN fly out to ask the Dems questions?
hairybeast
November 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm
ME IN 08, visit early and often. This is the only place you will find intelligent, friendly banter.
As for the debates, they have all been stupid regardless of party.
E the Wise
November 29, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I missed one I wanted to comment on also but I see Wes addressed it. It is patently absurd having so many candidates in the debate. The Democratic debate was basically Barak vs Hillary with some glib commentary from Edwards and the occasional Biden wisecrack. If we’re going to do a Survivor type thing to eliminate them how about a good old fashioned fight to the death?
Wes while I think that you have a good idea about letting people vote for what questions should get asked given the sheer volume of entries I don’t see how that would be possible. I understand that out of say 1000 entries hundreds will be on the same topic but once you let CNN or whatever media outlet is “moderating” the debate chose which questions people can vote on you taint the process right there. There is just no panacea here unfortunately. Ideally an objective panel would either decide which questions were voted on or chose the questions themselves but let’s face it there’s no such thing. In a perfect world that would be the media but we all know better. It’s a work in progress as far as I’m concerned.
HB I can’t refute the fact that Kerr may have been a plant but with his credentials he would’ve gotten airplay regardless. I’m honestly not sure what to make of that situation right now. I don’t have the democratic debate fresh in my mind but I’d be willing to bet there was a plant in there too. It makes for good television and that’s what CNN (or any other media outlet for that matter) is really interested in because they’re main concern is certainly not the integrity of the debate or the political process as a whole.
ME IN 08
November 29, 2007 at 6:47 pm
ME IN 08:
You have much to learn, young Jedi…
hairybeast
November 29, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Wes wrote:
Why? What is it about being President of the United States that demands such an ability?
Presidential decisions are not (or at least should not be) taken on the spur of the moment, without any help. We expect and want our presidents to have advisors who are up on all of the latest data, and are able to present the president with a complete range of options on whatever question is at hand. Then we expect the president to consider those options, and take his decision.
Remember the old saw about the Kennedy-Nixon debates: the people who watched on television thought that Senator Kennedy won, while the people who listened on radio thought that Vice President Nixon had won. What does that say about people’s perceptions gleaned from the debates, or what debates actually tell us about the job of the presidency?
Dana
November 30, 2007 at 6:00 am
The hirsute creature wrote:
No, no, no, you just don’t understand. A few weeks ago, they held a debate for the Democratic candidates, with Democratic operatives asking the questions. This time, they held a debate for the Republican candidates, with Democratic operatives asking the questions. See: they treated the candidate from both parties exactly the same!
Dana
November 30, 2007 at 6:03 am
How do you mean HB?
I get the impression you are a “liberal media conspiracy” type? I’m not saying CNN defintely wasn’t in on it I’m just saying I’m not sure what to make of it yet. As I mentioned it makes for good tv so I wouldn’t doubt they were in on it.
Take my words with a grain of salt though. Keep in mind I’;m the one who said he’d love to see all of the republican questions asked by liberals and vice versa. I just love seeing the candidates squirm and it shows me if they can perform under pressure which would probably be a good quality in a president.
By the way I never noticed the comments off to the right side of this forum. I love that last one by Steve Horner. I’m trying to figure out whether I’m an idiot, coward or bastard. I guess I’m pretty smart to get where I have gotten in life so I don’t think I’m an idiot, I’m a white guy who lived inthe ghetto for a while so I suppose I’m not a coward either…. I must be a bastard. I always thought of myself as more an a-hole but bastard it is I suppose.
ME IN 08
November 30, 2007 at 6:11 am
Well, it doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of their arguments, just on the importance of a touch of makeup and wiping your brow.
I can’t understand why you would think decision-making ability is NOT a good thing. President is “the decider”, no? Obviously nobody wants decisions to be made rashly, but you also want one who can make a well-reasoned case without seeming like a bully (Bush), a blowhard (Kerry), a fake (Rudy) or a phony (Hillary). This job is only partly “the decider”. The other half (and the half Bush seems to not care as much about) is “the leader”. You need to be able to make people trust you and WANT to follow you. And with the PR crisis we’ve found ourselves in, we seriously need one of those.
But yeah… debates. Youtube.
Wes
November 30, 2007 at 6:30 am
Just to stick my two cents into the decision making debate here. Not that I’ve ever been president….yet but I picture a staff meeting as a president having to make a bunch a rapid fire yet well informed decisions. Yes he does (hopefully) have a cabinet that will provide him with accurate, insightful infromation but ultimately it’s up to the president and I would imagine that in any given meeting he gets plenty of decisions he has to make on the fly on a wide variety of topics. Obviously the more “important” deicions require and get more deliberation but bear in mind that even the seemingly mundane daily decisions of a president effect many people’s lives and livelyhoods.
As far as being a “leader” that is an intangible quality that seems to have eluded any of this year’s group from what I can see. Just to throw a bone to both sides when a guy like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton stood up and said everything was gonig to be all right we’ll get through this you believed him. He gave you comfort. You just don’t get that sense from any of this year’s group. Obama’s got the same air of confidence but it comes accross kind of arrogant in his case. And that type is exactly what our country needs right now but I just don’t see it in anyone this go around.
ME IN 08
November 30, 2007 at 7:03 am
Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I meant to say regarding decisions.
Wes
November 30, 2007 at 9:19 am